Back
2017 Supreme(Cal) 210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
RAKESH TIWARI, SHIVAKANT PRASAD, JJ.
Central School Service Commission & Others - Appellants
Versus
Tanuj Paul - Respondent
CAN No. 10950 of 2013; FMA Nos. 2265, 2267, 2344, 2474, 2275, 2276 of 2014; 177, 407 of 2015; 519, 520, 3929 & 3930 of 2016
Decided On : 18-05-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Abhijit Gangopadhyay, Supriya Dubey, Shilpi Ganguly
For the Respondent: Amal Baran Chatterjee, Sunit Kumar Roy
The main legal point established in the given judgment is that in the absence of any provision for re-examination or re-evaluation of answer scripts, the High Court should not generally direct revaluation of answer scripts. The court also highlighted the settled principle that the court should not examine answer sheets or order re-evaluation of the scripts unless there were compelling reasons or statutory provisions providing such remedy. The court further emphasized that it is exclusively within the province of the legislative and its delegate to determine as a matter of policy how the provision of the statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantial as well as procedural, would have to be incorporated in the Rules or Regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act.
Headnote:
Right to Information Act - Re-examination of Answer Scripts - West Bengal Central School Service Commission - [EDUCATION] - [Right to Information Act, 2005] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of persons for appointment to the post of teachers) Rules, 2007. The court emphasized that in the absence of any provision for re-examination or re-evaluation of answer scripts, the High Court should not generally direct revaluation of answer scripts. The court also highlighted the settled principle that the court should not examine answer sheets or order re-evaluation of the scripts unless there were compelling reasons or statutory provisions providing such remedy. The court further emphasized that it is exclusively within the province of the legislative and its delegate to determine as a matter of policy how the provision of the statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantial as well as procedural, would have to be incorporated in the Rules or Regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. The court also discussed the procedure of moderation to ensure uniformity and consistency in the valuation of answer scripts. The court ultimately set aside the judgments impugned and allowed the appeals.
Fact of the Case:
Several writ applications were allowed by the writ court directing the West Bengal Central School Service Commission for re-examination or re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the appellants/writ petitioners challenging the impugned judgment. The appellants filed several appeals against the judgments. The respondent/writ petitioner participated in the 11th Regional Level Selection Test (RLST), 2010, for being appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher in Mathematics. The respondent made applications under the Right to Information Act seeking inspection of answer scripts and re-evaluation of his answer scripts. The writ petitioner preferred a writ petition challenging the refusal of the concerned authority of the West Bengal School Service Commission to re-evaluate the answer script. The High Court directed the appellant authority to appoint an examiner for the purpose of re-examination and/or re-evaluation of the answer script of the Mathematics subject. The respondent relied on several reported decisions to support the case. The court discussed the marks obtained by the respondent and the last empanelled candidate and the comparison of marks secured by the respondent with that of the last scheduled candidate. The court also discussed the decisions relied on by the writ petitioners/respondents and the settled principle that the court should not generally direct revaluation of answer scripts in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory Rules/Regulations. The court ultimately set aside the judgments impugned and allowed the appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the judgments impugned were devoid of any merit and set them aside. The court emphasized that in the absence of any provision for re-examination or re-evaluation of answer scripts, the High Court should not generally direct revaluation of answer scripts. The court also highlighted the settled principle that the court should not examine answer sheets or order re-evaluation of the scripts unless there were compelling reasons or statutory provisions providing such remedy. The court further emphasized that it is exclusively within the province of the legislative and its delegate to determine as a matter of policy how the provision of the statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantial as well as procedural, would have to be incorporated in the Rules or Regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. The court also discussed the procedure of moderation to ensure uniformity and consistency in the valuation of answer scripts.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the challenge to the method of examination and evaluation of the answer scripts, the refusal of the concerned authority of West Bengal School Service Commission to re-evaluate the answer script, and the absence of any provision for re-evaluation or re-examination of the answer scripts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in the absence of any provision for re-examination or re-evaluation of answer scripts, the High Court should not generally direct revaluation of answer scripts. The court also highlighted the settled principle that the court should not examine answer sheets or order re-evaluation of the scripts unless there were compelling reasons or statutory provisions providing such remedy. The court further emphasized that it is exclusively within the province of the legislative and its delegate to determine as a matter of policy how the provision of the statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantial as well as procedural, would have to be incorporated in the Rules or Regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. The court also discussed the procedure of moderation to ensure uniformity and consistency in the valuation of answer scripts.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgments impugned and allowed the appeals. The court found the judgments impugned to be devoid of any merit and emphasized that in the absence of any provision for re-examination or re-evaluation of answer scripts, the High Court should not generally direct revaluation of answer scripts. The court also highlighted the settled principle that the court should not examine answer sheets or order re-evaluation of the scripts unless there were compelling reasons or statutory provisions providing such remedy. The court further emphasized that it is exclusively within the province of the legislative and its delegate to determine as a matter of policy how the provision of the statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantial as well as procedural, would have to be incorporated in the Rules or Regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. The court also discussed the procedure of moderation to ensure uniformity and consistency in the valuation of answer scripts.
Shivakant Prasad, J.
By a common judgment dated 10.10.2012 several writ applications were allowed by the writ court directing the West Bengal Central School Service Commission for re-examination or re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the appellants/writ petitioners challenging the impugned judgment several appeals have been filed.
2. In respect of one writ application being W.P.18407(W) of 2012 another Hon’ble Judge sitting singly following the aforesaid judgment passed identical judgment against which another appeal being FMA 407 of 2015 has been filed. All the above appeals have been taken up together for hearing as they can be awarded by a common judgment because the appeals emanates from the common judgment passed in the aforesaid sets of writ petitions.
3. Mr. Abhijit Gangopadhyay, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that in absence of any Rule for reexamination/re-evaluation of answer scripts order for reexamination/ re-evaluation cannot be passed.
4. The Writ Court by its common judgment and order dated 10.10.2012 and the another Writ Court by its judgment dated 18.12.2012 following the judgment dated 10.10.2012 has directed the West Bengal Central School Service Commission to re-examine or re-evaluate the answer scripts by examiners other than the examiners who had examined the answer scripts relying upon Right to Information Act, 2005 in effect laid down new Rules of the Selection test as the Rules following which the said Selection Test was held did not contain any such Rule for re-examination or re-evaluation.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that Right to Information Act, 2005 is inapplicable in respect of reexamination of answer scripts and no order for re-examination of answer scripts in a competitive examination for selecting Teachers of Schools can be passed by the Court of law in absence of any such rules.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioners has submitted that they have given correct answers to the questions but the answers were not properly examined by the examiners awarding full marks in respect of those answers.
7. It is further argued on behalf of the appellants attacking the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners that selection test was not by way of objective type test rather it was subjective type and the candidates were asked to write answers against questions framed by the experts. There were thirty questions each of two marks. The full marks was sixty. Different candidates appeared in different subjects according to their qualification for being teachers in respect of those subjects. Some candidates appeared for the post of Assistant Teacher for the subject mathematics, some candidates appeared for the post of teachers in the subject Bengali, some appeared for the subject History etc. In the said selection test nearly 3,00,000 (Three lacs) candidates participated for nearly 3,000 (Three thousand) vacancies for the post of Assistant Teachers.
8. There was no allegation in any of the writ applications that the questions were incorrect or incorrectly framed for which answers could not be given or answers were bound to be incorrect. There was also no allegation against the examiners being biased. There was no allegation of any corrupt practice in the said examination. There was no allegation of practice of any fraud of any nature whatsoever.
9. It is submitted that in catena of decisions the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again pronounced that in an examination, in absence of rules of re-examination/reevaluation of answer scripts, there cannot be any reexamination-re-evaluation.
10. It is submitted that for the reasons as aforesaid the appeals are to be allowed and the impugned order should be set aside and quashed.
11. Admittedly, the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner participated in 11th Regional Level Sel
